Search (67 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × author_ss:"Thelwall, M."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009) 0.03 
    0.031731267 = product of:
  0.11899225 = sum of:
    0.015904883 = product of:
      0.031809766 = sum of:
        0.031809766 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031809766 = score(doc=2734,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.032484557 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032484557 = score(doc=2734,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
    0.031809766 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031809766 = score(doc=2734,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
    0.038793035 = sum of:
      0.01103113 = weight(_text_:information in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01103113 = score(doc=2734,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.027761906 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027761906 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 12:43:51
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.434-442
  2. Maflahi, N.; Thelwall, M.: When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? : Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals (2016) 0.03 
    0.026780019 = product of:
  0.100425065 = sum of:
    0.01908586 = product of:
      0.03817172 = sum of:
        0.03817172 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03817172 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.038981467 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038981467 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
    0.03817172 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03817172 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
    0.0041860198 = product of:
      0.0083720395 = sum of:
        0.0083720395 = weight(_text_:information in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0083720395 = score(doc=2495,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    In theory, articles can attract readers on the social reference sharing site Mendeley before they can attract citations, so Mendeley altmetrics could provide early indications of article impact. This article investigates the influence of time on the number of Mendeley readers of an article through a theoretical discussion and an investigation into the relationship between counts of readers of, and citations to, 4 general library and information science (LIS) journals. For this discipline, it takes about 7 years for articles to attract as many Scopus citations as Mendeley readers, and after this the Spearman correlation between readers and citers is stable at about 0.6 for all years. This suggests that Mendeley readership counts may be useful impact indicators for both newer and older articles. The lack of dates for individual Mendeley article readers and an unknown bias toward more recent articles mean that readership data should be normalized individually by year, however, before making any comparisons between articles published in different years.
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.1, S.191-199
  3. Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006) 0.02 
    0.02261402 = product of:
  0.1130701 = sum of:
    0.02179256 = weight(_text_:und in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02179256 = score(doc=77,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
    0.05197529 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05197529 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.3981634 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
    0.03930225 = sum of:
      0.0078932345 = weight(_text_:information in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0078932345 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
      0.031409014 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031409014 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
  0.2 = coord(3/15)
    Abstract
    Die Webometrie ist ein Teilbereich der Informationswissenschaft der zur Zeit auf die Analyse von Linkstrukturen konzentriert ist. Er ist stark von der Zitationsanalyse geprägt, wie der empirische Schwerpunkt auf der Wissenschaftsanalyse zeigt. In diesem Beitrag diskutieren wir die Nutzung linkbasierter Maße in einem breiten informetrischen Kontext und bewerten verschiedene Verfahren, auch im Hinblick auf ihr generelles Potentialfür die Sozialwissenschaften. Dabei wird auch ein allgemeiner Rahmenfür Linkanalysen mit den erforderlichen Arbeitsschritten vorgestellt. Abschließend werden vielversprechende zukünftige Anwendungsfelder der Webometrie benannt, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Analyse von Blogs.
    Date
    4.12.2006 12:12:22
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.401-406
  4. Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016) 0.00 
    0.0021285866 = product of:
  0.031928796 = sum of:
    0.031928796 = sum of:
      0.0083720395 = weight(_text_:information in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0083720395 = score(doc=2856,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
      0.023556758 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023556758 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    This article introduces a new source of evidence of the value of medical-related research: citations from clinical guidelines. These give evidence that research findings have been used to inform the day-to-day practice of medical staff. To identify whether citations from guidelines can give different information from that of traditional citation counts, this article assesses the extent to which references in clinical guidelines tend to be highly cited in the academic literature and highly read in Mendeley. Using evidence from the United Kingdom, references associated with the UK's National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines tended to be substantially more cited than comparable articles, unless they had been published in the most recent 3 years. Citation counts also seemed to be stronger indicators than Mendeley readership altmetrics. Hence, although presence in guidelines may be particularly useful to highlight the contributions of recently published articles, for older articles citation counts may already be sufficient to recognize their contributions to health in society.
    Date
    19. 3.2016 12:22:00
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.960-966
  5. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007) 0.00 
    0.0019664785 = product of:
  0.029497176 = sum of:
    0.029497176 = sum of:
      0.009866543 = weight(_text_:information in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009866543 = score(doc=586,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
      0.019630633 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019630633 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.11, S.1631-1644
  6. Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020) 0.00 
    0.0019664785 = product of:
  0.029497176 = sum of:
    0.029497176 = sum of:
      0.009866543 = weight(_text_:information in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009866543 = score(doc=178,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
      0.019630633 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019630633 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 72(2020) no.6, S.945-962
  7. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016) 0.00 
    0.0019651123 = product of:
  0.029476684 = sum of:
    0.029476684 = sum of:
      0.005919926 = weight(_text_:information in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005919926 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
      0.023556758 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023556758 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Date
    16.11.2016 11:07:22
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3036-3050
  8. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018) 0.00 
    0.0019651123 = product of:
  0.029476684 = sum of:
    0.029476684 = sum of:
      0.005919926 = weight(_text_:information in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005919926 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
      0.023556758 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023556758 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Date
    28. 7.2018 10:00:22
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.8, S.959-973
  9. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012) 0.00 
    0.0017738222 = product of:
  0.026607333 = sum of:
    0.026607333 = sum of:
      0.0069766995 = weight(_text_:information in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0069766995 = score(doc=57,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
      0.019630633 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019630633 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Webometric network analyses have been used to map the connectivity of groups of websites to identify clusters, important sites or overall structure. Such analyses have mainly been based upon hyperlink counts, the number of hyperlinks between a pair of websites, although some have used title mentions or URL citations instead. The ability to automatically gather hyperlink counts from Yahoo! ceased in April 2011 and the ability to manually gather such counts was due to cease by early 2012, creating a need for alternatives. This article assesses URL citations and title mentions as possible replacements for hyperlinks in both binary and weighted direct link and co-inlink network diagrams. It also assesses three different types of data for the network connections: hit count estimates, counts of matching URLs, and filtered counts of matching URLs. Results from analyses of U.S. library and information science departments and U.K. universities give evidence that metrics based upon URLs or titles can be appropriate replacements for metrics based upon hyperlinks for both binary and weighted networks, although filtered counts of matching URLs are necessary to give the best results for co-title mention and co-URL citation network diagrams.
    Date
    6. 4.2012 18:16:22
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.4, S.805-816
  10. Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017) 0.00 
    0.0016375937 = product of:
  0.024563905 = sum of:
    0.024563905 = sum of:
      0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0049332716 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
      0.019630633 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019630633 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.2, S.174-183
  11. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Abdoli, M.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: Why are coauthored academic articles more cited : higher quality or larger audience? (2023) 0.00 
    0.0016375937 = product of:
  0.024563905 = sum of:
    0.024563905 = sum of:
      0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0049332716 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
      0.019630633 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019630633 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:11:50
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.791-810
  12. Thelwall, M.: Webometrics (2009) 0.00 
    4.4124527E-4 = product of:
  0.0066186786 = sum of:
    0.0066186786 = product of:
      0.013237357 = sum of:
        0.013237357 = weight(_text_:information in 3906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013237357 = score(doc=3906,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 3906, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3906)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Webometrics is an information science field concerned with measuring aspects of the World Wide Web (WWW) for a variety of information science research goals. It came into existence about five years after the Web was formed and has since grown to become a significant aspect of information science, at least in terms of published research. Although some webometrics research has focused on the structure or evolution of the Web itself or the performance of commercial search engines, most has used data from the Web to shed light on information provision or online communication in various contexts. Most prominently, techniques have been developed to track, map, and assess Web-based informal scholarly communication, for example, in terms of the hyperlinks between academic Web sites or the online impact of digital repositories. In addition, a range of nonacademic issues and groups of Web users have also been analyzed.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
  13. Harries, G.; Wilkinson, D.; Price, L.; Fairclough, R.; Thelwall, M.: Hyperlinks as a data source for science mapping : making sense of it all (2005) 0.00 
    3.9466174E-4 = product of:
  0.005919926 = sum of:
    0.005919926 = product of:
      0.011839852 = sum of:
        0.011839852 = weight(_text_:information in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011839852 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 4654, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Source
    Journal of information science. 30(2005) no.5, S.436-
  14. Thelwall, M.; Vaughan, L.: Webometrics : an introduction to the special issue (2004) 0.00 
    3.7209064E-4 = product of:
  0.0055813594 = sum of:
    0.0055813594 = product of:
      0.011162719 = sum of:
        0.011162719 = weight(_text_:information in 2908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011162719 = score(doc=2908,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 2908, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2908)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Webometrics, the quantitative study of Web phenomena, is a field encompassing contributions from information science, computer science, and statistical physics. Its methodology draws especially from bibliometrics. This special issue presents contributions that both push for ward the field and illustrate a wide range of webometric approaches.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.14, S.1213-1215
  15. Thelwall, M.; Wilkinson, D.: Finding similar academic Web sites with links, bibliometric couplings and colinks (2004) 0.00 
    3.4178712E-4 = product of:
  0.0051268064 = sum of:
    0.0051268064 = product of:
      0.010253613 = sum of:
        0.010253613 = weight(_text_:information in 2571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010253613 = score(doc=2571,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2571, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2571)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    A common task in both Webmetrics and Web information retrieval is to identify a set of Web pages or sites that are similar in content. In this paper we assess the extent to which links, colinks and couplings can be used to identify similar Web sites. As an experiment, a random sample of 500 pairs of domains from the UK academic Web were taken and human assessments of site similarity, based upon content type, were compared against ratings for the three concepts. The results show that using a combination of all three gives the highest probability of identifying similar sites, but surprisingly this was only a marginal improvement over using links alone. Another unexpected result was that high values for either colink counts or couplings were associated with only a small increased likelihood of similarity. The principal advantage of using couplings and colinks was found to be greater coverage in terms of a much larger number of pairs of sites being connected by these measures, instead of increased probability of similarity. In information retrieval terminology, this is improved recall rather than improved precision.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 40(2004) no.3, S.515-526
  16. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Google book search : citation analysis for social science and the humanities (2009) 0.00 
    3.2888478E-4 = product of:
  0.0049332716 = sum of:
    0.0049332716 = product of:
      0.009866543 = sum of:
        0.009866543 = weight(_text_:information in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009866543 = score(doc=2946,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    In both the social sciences and the humanities, books and monographs play significant roles in research communication. The absence of citations from most books and monographs from the Thomson Reuters/Institute for Scientific Information databases (ISI) has been criticized, but attempts to include citations from or to books in the research evaluation of the social sciences and humanities have not led to widespread adoption. This article assesses whether Google Book Search (GBS) can partially fill this gap by comparing citations from books with citations from journal articles to journal articles in 10 science, social science, and humanities disciplines. Book citations were 31% to 212% of ISI citations and, hence, numerous enough to supplement ISI citations in the social sciences and humanities covered, but not in the sciences (3%-5%), except for computing (46%), due to numerous published conference proceedings. A case study was also made of all 1,923 articles in the 51 information science and library science ISI-indexed journals published in 2003. Within this set, highly book-cited articles tended to receive many ISI citations, indicating a significant relationship between the two types of citation data, but with important exceptions that point to the additional information provided by book citations. In summary, GBS is clearly a valuable new source of citation data for the social sciences and humanities. One practical implication is that book-oriented scholars should consult it for additional citations to their work when applying for promotion and tenure.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1537-1549
  17. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: News stories as evidence for research? : BBC citations from articles, Books, and Wikipedia (2017) 0.00 
    3.2888478E-4 = product of:
  0.0049332716 = sum of:
    0.0049332716 = product of:
      0.009866543 = sum of:
        0.009866543 = weight(_text_:information in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009866543 = score(doc=3760,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Although news stories target the general public and are sometimes inaccurate, they can serve as sources of real-world information for researchers. This article investigates the extent to which academics exploit journalism using content and citation analyses of online BBC News stories cited by Scopus articles. A total of 27,234 Scopus-indexed publications have cited at least one BBC News story, with a steady annual increase. Citations from the arts and humanities (2.8% of publications in 2015) and social sciences (1.5%) were more likely than citations from medicine (0.1%) and science (<0.1%). Surprisingly, half of the sampled Scopus-cited science and technology (53%) and medicine and health (47%) stories were based on academic research, rather than otherwise unpublished information, suggesting that researchers have chosen a lower-quality secondary source for their citations. Nevertheless, the BBC News stories that were most frequently cited by Scopus, Google Books, and Wikipedia introduced new information from many different topics, including politics, business, economics, statistics, and reports about events. Thus, news stories are mediating real-world knowledge into the academic domain, a potential cause for concern.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.8, S.2017-2028
  18. Thelwall, M.: Bibliometrics to webometrics (2009) 0.00 
    3.255793E-4 = product of:
  0.0048836893 = sum of:
    0.0048836893 = product of:
      0.009767379 = sum of:
        0.009767379 = weight(_text_:information in 4239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009767379 = score(doc=4239,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 4239, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Bibliometrics has changed out of all recognition since 1958; becoming established as a field, being taught widely in library and information science schools, and being at the core of a number of science evaluation research groups around the world. This was all made possible by the work of Eugene Garfield and his Science Citation Index. This article reviews the distance that bibliometrics has travelled since 1958 by comparing early bibliometrics with current practice, and by giving an overview of a range of recent developments, such as patent analysis, national research evaluation exercises, visualization techniques, new applications, online citation indexes, and the creation of digital libraries. Webometrics, a modern, fast-growing offshoot of bibliometrics, is reviewed in detail. Finally, future prospects are discussed with regard to both bibliometrics and webometrics.
    Source
    Information science in transition, Ed.: A. Gilchrist
  19. Vaughan, L.; Thelwall, M.: Scholarly use of the Web : what are the key inducers of links to journal Web sites? (2003) 0.00 
    2.848226E-4 = product of:
  0.004272339 = sum of:
    0.004272339 = product of:
      0.008544678 = sum of:
        0.008544678 = weight(_text_:information in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008544678 = score(doc=1236,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Web links have been studied by information scientists for at least six years but it is only in the past two that clear evidence has emerged to show that counts of links to scholarly Web spaces (universities and departments) can correlate significantly with research measures, giving some credence to their use for the investigation of scholarly communication. This paper reports an a study to investigate the factors that influence the creation of links to journal Web sites. An empirical approach is used: collecting data and testing for significant patterns. The specific questions addressed are whether site age and site content are inducers of links to a journal's Web site as measured by the ratio of link counts to Journal Impact Factors, two variables previously discovered to be related. A new methodology for data collection is also introduced that uses the Internet Archive to obtain an earliest known creation date for Web sites. The results show that both site age and site content are significant factors for the disciplines studied: library and information science, and law. Comparisons between the two fields also show disciplinary differences in Web site characteristics. Scholars and publishers should be particularly aware that richer content an a journal's Web site tends to generate links and thus the traffic to the site.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.1, S.29-38
  20. Mohammadi , E.; Thelwall, M.: Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities : research evaluation and knowledge flows (2014) 0.00 
    2.848226E-4 = product of:
  0.004272339 = sum of:
    0.004272339 = product of:
      0.008544678 = sum of:
        0.008544678 = weight(_text_:information in 2190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008544678 = score(doc=2190,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2190, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2190)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Although there is evidence that counting the readers of an article in the social reference site, Mendeley, may help to capture its research impact, the extent to which this is true for different scientific fields is unknown. In this study, we compare Mendeley readership counts with citations for different social sciences and humanities disciplines. The overall correlation between Mendeley readership counts and citations for the social sciences was higher than for the humanities. Low and medium correlations between Mendeley bookmarks and citation counts in all the investigated disciplines suggest that these measures reflect different aspects of research impact. Mendeley data were also used to discover patterns of information flow between scientific fields. Comparing information flows based on Mendeley bookmarking data and cross-disciplinary citation analysis for the disciplines revealed substantial similarities and some differences. Thus, the evidence from this study suggests that Mendeley readership data could be used to help capture knowledge transfer across scientific disciplines, especially for people that read but do not author articles, as well as giving impact evidence at an earlier stage than is possible with citation counts.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.8, S.1627-1638

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 66
  • d 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 66
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications